That's correct. Instead of 40 gold for the knight 0 for me.
Its 40 gold for me, 20 gold for the knight with a total of 60 gold.
Oh, I see; sorry, I was misreading it as "
I will have to pay 60 gold, and my knight 20."
There is *A* benefit from doing so. However, if a realm is seeking the absolute most efficient method of gold utilization for maximum army strength, they would never use a warchest. Instead, the proper method would be to evenly spread out gold to nobles as needed prior to a campaign such that they can afford the costs ahead of time.
Sure. Who ever said that a new feature of this sort had to be designed to improve maximum gold efficiency?
The best kinds of feature improve usability and reduce the need for micromanaging, but at a modest reduction in cost-efficiency.
For new features, we have to consider that this very well could happen, not just that a normal realm wouldn't do it. I certainly would make sure to implement it while making zero use of the warchest should such be implemented. I'd much rather my gold be used efficiently if I plan to fight a 6 month to 2 year real life war, where gold becomes an issue long term. This is also much more reasonable to use the war chest assuming an abundance of nobles (ie. a lot of players). However, the current game state lacks players, so efficiency is paramount.
You're welcome to do that. Indeed, I would be glad to see some armies try that.
And then have everyone assigned to them complain about always having to deal with the manual gold redistribution, and look enviously at the other army, where the Duke just dumps 1000 gold in the war chest so they don't have to worry about it.
